meeting documents

Meeting Documents

Meeting DateNovember 15, 2021

T R I A L C O U R T F A C I L I T Y M O D I F I C A T I O N A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E

N O T I C E A N D A G E N D A O F O P E N M E E T I N G

Open to the Public (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.75(c)(1) and (e)(1)) THIS MEETING IS BEING CONDUCTED BY ELECTRONIC MEANS

THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED

Date: November 15, 2021 Time: 12:10 PM Public Audiocast: https://jcc.granicus.com/player/event/1478

Meeting materials will be posted on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website at least three business days before the meeting.

Members of the public seeking to make an audio recording of the meeting must submit a written request at least two business days before the meeting. Requests can be e-mailed to [email protected].

Agenda items are numbered for identification purposes only and will not necessarily be considered in the indicated order.

I . O P E N M E E T I N G ( C A L . R U L E S O F C O U R T , R U L E 1 0 . 7 5 ( C ) ( 1 ) )

Call to Order and Roll Call

I I . P U B L I C C O M M E N T ( C A L . R U L E S O F C O U R T , R U L E 1 0 . 7 5 ( K ) ( 1 ) ) This meeting will be conducted by electronic means with a listen only conference line available for the public. As such, the public may submit comments for this meeting only in writing. In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(k)(1), written comments pertaining to any agenda item of a regularly noticed open meeting can be submitted up to one complete business day before the meeting. For this specific meeting, comments should be e-mailed to [email protected]. Only written comments received by 12:00 Noon on November 12, 2021 will be provided to advisory body members prior to the start of the meeting.

www.courts.ca.gov/tcfmac.htm [email protected]

Request for ADA accommodations should be made at least three business days before the meeting and directed to:

[email protected]

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjcc.granicus.com%2Fplayer%2Fevent%2F1478&data=04%7C01%7CKatherine.Albertus%40jud.ca.gov%7C86406b6115874dd5b06908d99faebd0b%7C10cfa08a5b174e8fa245139062e839dc%7C0%7C0%7C637716395120745409%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=hjkkom%2Fb7Rcm1o6TkiIJhkVAr2CTFF0ID2%2FUebwgX%2Bw%3D&reserved=0

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.courts.ca.gov/tcfmac.htm



M e e t i n g N o t i c e a n d A g e n d a N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 2 1

2 | P a g e T r i a l C o u r t F a c i l i t y M o d i f i c a t i o n A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e

I I I . A C T I O N I T E M S ( I T E M S 1 – 1 )

Item 1

Revised Draft Air Scrubber Policy and Invitation to Comment (Action Required) 1. Approve the revised draft Judicial Council of California Policy on the Use of Air

Filtration Devices During Wildfires to proceed to public comment beginning on or about November 22, 2021 and ending on January 10, 2022.

2. Approve the Invitation to Comment cover memorandum which provides background information for the draft policy.

Presenters: Ms. Pella McCormick, Director, Facilities Services Ms. Jennifer Chappelle, Manager, Facilities Services

I V . A D J O U R N M E N T

Adjourn

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688

www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-invitationstocomment.htm

This proposal has not been approved by the Judicial Council and is not intended to represent the views of the council, its Rules Committee, or its Legislation Committee. It is circulated for comment purposes only.

I N V I T A T I O N T O C O M M E N T [ITC prefix as assigned]-__

Title

Court Facilities: Use of Air Filtration Devices During Wildfires

Proposed Rules, Forms, Standards, or Statutes

Adopt Judicial Council Policy on the Use of Air Filtration Devices During Wildfires

Proposed by

Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee

Hon. Donald Cole Byrd, Chair

Action Requested

Review and submit comments by January 10, 2022

Proposed Effective Date

May 13, 2022

Contact

Jennifer Chappelle, 916-263-1945 [email protected]

Executive Summary and Origin At its October 2021 meeting, the Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee (TCFMAC) recommended to the Judicial Council that it adopt the proposed policy which terminates the recent practice of providing air filtration devices at Judicial Council expense during wildfires events. The policy permits trial courts to fund such services if they want.

Background Over the past several years, as wildfire events have increased in scope and number, the Judicial Council’s Facilities Services has allocated an increasing portion of its Facility Modification (FM) annual budget to the deployment of air filtration devices (portable air cleaning equipment, also known as air purifiers, air scrubbers, or air sanitizers) in courthouses impacted by excessive smoke. In fiscal year 2020-21 alone, $4,844,692 were expended on air filtration devices, causing a budget shortfall. To address the shortfall, the TCFMAC ceased all funding of Priority 2 FMs for several months while the Judicial Council sought a budget augmentation from the State.

At the July 2021 TCFMAC meeting, the committee received a presentation from staff on the available data on the effectiveness of air filtration devices, industry standards, and workplace safety regulations. Due to the lack of data, standards, and regulations, and to prevent a budget shortfall in fiscal year 2021-22, the committee 1) adopted interim guidelines for deployment and funding of air filtration devices (Interim Guidelines), 2) approved a pilot study on the effectiveness of air filtration devices in courthouses affected by wildfire smoke (which

http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-invitationstocomment.htm

2

concluded on September 30, 2021), and 3) directed staff to develop a formal policy on the use of air filtration devices during wildfires. The Interim Guidelines are as follows:

a. If the outside Air Quality Index (AQI) (level) is 400 or less, the air scrubbers be provided exclusively at the expense of the trial court that requests the use of such devices; and

b. If the AQI is in excess of 400, the cost of air scrubbers for that trial court locality will be shared 50/50 between the Judicial Council’s budget and the budget of the trial court.

The Proposal The goal of this policy reviewed and discussed at the October 2021 TFMAC meeting is to make clear that the Judicial Council will no longer pay for air filtration devices during wildfire events since a recent test conducted by a licensed industrial hygienist of the effectiveness of such devices in three courthouses found they “did not appear to consistently improve air quality throughout the facility tested.” Further, no other state agency uses such devices on a regular basis during these conditions. This policy also addresses other mitigation measures that can be used during such wildfire events, including the possibility that a local court may exercise its discretion to curtail or fully close operations at a given location when necessary.

To determine the efficacy of air filtration devices in operating court facilities, the Judicial Council retained an industrial hygienist to perform indoor air quality assessments at three courthouses impacted by wildfires during the summer of 2021. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate indoor air quality before and after using air filtration devices. Specifically, the hygienist monitored particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) levels, provided recommendations for the optimal number and locations of air filtration devices for each building to best improve the air quality in the building, conducted air monitoring for PM2.5 while using air filtration devices, and analyzed the PM2.5 levels post-filtration usage.

These steps were undertaken to determine if the use of air filtration devices in buildings situated near wildfires improve the indoor air quality for the occupants.

Baseline data was collected without the use of air filtration devices and was compared to data collected during and after using air filtration devices. The comparison was performed by calculating the difference in concentrations of PM2.5 between the indoor and outdoor air.

The data did not indicate a consistent improvement of air quality when operating the air filtration devices. Slight improvements in PM2.5 levels were identified but were localized to locations very near where the air filtration devices were operating. The hygienist concluded that the use of air filtration devices in the facilities did not reduce the level of PM2.5 particulates, nor did they provide an improvement to indoor air quality throughout any of the facilities.

3

Additionally, a review of the practices of other California state government agencies identified that air filtration devices are not routinely used by other State and public agencies. Given the lack of improvement in indoor air quality as defined by PM2.5 levels with the use of air filtration devices, and the lack of air filtration device usage by State and public agencies, the policy would establish that the Judicial Council would not fund the deployment of air filtration devices in trial court facilities.

Alternatives Considered Alternatives considered included continuing to fund, in whole or in part, deployment of air filtration devices during wildfire events (a) on request with 100% of the cost carried by the FM budget; (b) as provided in the Interim Guidelines; or (c) as provided in the Interim Guidelines but with the AQI trigger changed from 400 to 250 or some other level. The alternatives were rejected based, in part, on the findings of the pilot program which indicate a lack of consistent improvement of air quality when operating the air filtration devices in operating courthouses.

The policy includes mitigation measures the Judicial Council and courts can take to limit the effects from wildfire smoke in court facilities, such as adjusting the ventilation systems air intake settings. The courts may provide respirators, such as N95 filtering facepiece respirators, to all employees for voluntary use in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 5144. Further, when conditions warrant it, a court may curtail or fully close in-person operations and/or rely on remote access to provide continuing public services when air pollution is at such an extreme level that it is prudent to do so.

Fiscal and Operational Impacts Due to the extensive nature of fires statewide in FY2020/21 and the many requests from trial courts for deployment of air scrubbers Judicial Council expended $4.8 million deploying air scrubbers. These unplanned expenses limited the Judicial Council’s ability to perform other needed rehabilitation of failed and almost failed building systems and required Judicial Council to seek emergency funding from the State to augment the FM budget to respond to emergency maintenance projects, such a water leaks/floods and failed HVAC systems.

Since the pilot program testing established that the deployment of air filtration devices did not significantly improve indoor air quality in the operating court facilities tested and that other State and public agencies do not deploy air scrubbers during wildfire smoke events, the policy would establish that the Judicial Council would not fund the deployment of air filtration devices in trial court facilities.

4

Request for Specific Comments In addition to comments on the proposal as a whole, the advisory committee is interested in comments on the following:

• Does the proposal appropriately address the stated purpose? • Would a continuation of the Interim Guidelines as currently stated or at a different

AQI trigger level better address the stated purposes and why?

The advisory committee also seeks comments from courts on the following cost and implementation matters:

• Are there other mitigation measures the Judicial Council has not considered? • What would the implementation requirements be for courts—for example, training

staff (please identify position and expected hours of training), revising processes and procedures?

• Would a May 2022 Judicial Council approval of this proposal provide sufficient time for implementation?

• How well would this proposal work in courts of different sizes?

All written comments received will be judicial administrative records disclosable under Rules of Court Rule 10.500.

Attachments and Links 1. Materials for October 2021 Meeting of TCFMAC (see Action Item 6):

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tcfmac-20211029-open-materials.pdf 2. Materials for July 2021 Meeting of TCFMAC (see Action Item 7):

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tcfmac-20210719-OPEN-materials.pdf 3. Minutes for the July 2021 Meeting of TCFMAC (see Action Item 7):

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tcfmac-20210719-Open-Minutes.pdf

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tcfmac-20211029-open-materials.pdf

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tcfmac-20210719-OPEN-materials.pdf

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tcfmac-20210719-Open-Minutes.pdf

Judicial Council of California Policy on the Use of Air Filtration Devices During Wildfires

NOVEMBER 15, 2021

Judicial Council Policy on the Use of Air Filtration Devices During Wildfires November 15, 2021

1

1. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this Judicial Council of California policy is to establish guidelines for the use of air filtration devices during wildfires to mitigate the impacts of wildfire smoke on Judicial Council-owned and Judicial Council-managed court facilities and operations. This policy also includes an analysis of the efficacy of air filtration devices.

2. Legal Authorities

Government Code section 70352 establishes the Court Facilities Trust Fund (Fund 3066) and authorizes money deposited in this fund and appropriated by the Legislature to be administered by the Judicial Council for the operation, repair, and maintenance of court facilities and for other purposes provided by statute. Government Code section 70301 includes heat, ventilation, air-conditioning, light, and fixtures for those rooms and chambers as components of court facilities. (Section 70301(d).) Section 70301(g) defines “maintenance” as the ongoing upkeep of buildings, equipment, grounds, and utilities required to keep a building and its systems in a condition adequate to support its designed level of service. Section 70301(h) defines “responsibility for facilities” as the obligation of providing, operating, maintaining, altering, and renovating a building that contains the facilities.

3. Policy Goal

The goal of this policy is to define actions that can be taken by the Judicial Council during wildfire events to support court facilities, court operations, and court occupants.

4. Definitions

4.1 Air filtration devices: Portable air cleaning equipment, also known as air purifiers, air scrubbers, or air sanitizers, designed to filter the air in a single room or area by using fans to draw in air from a room, passing it through a filter to remove particles, then expelling the filtered air back into the room.

4.2 Particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5): Solid particles and liquid droplets suspended in air, known as particulate matter, with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller.

4.3 Air Quality Index: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s index for reporting air quality, ranging from 0 (“Good”) to 301 and higher (“Hazardous”). An index value of 151 is considered “Unhealthy,” in which some members of the general public may experience health effects and members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects

4.4 Mechanical ventilation system: Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system used for moving air between indoor and outdoor areas, along with heating and cooling in buildings.


2

4.5 Filtering facepiece respirator: A negative pressure particulate respirator with a filter as an integral part of the facepiece or with the entire facepiece composed of the filtering medium (examples include N95 filtering facepiece respirators).

5. Efficacy of Air Filtration Devices

The Judicial Council has determined, based upon the findings of a professional industrial hygienist, that air filtration devices do not significantly reduce the level of PM2.5 particulates and do not provide a significant improvement to indoor air quality in the court facilities studied.

6. Air Filtration Use by Other Public Agencies and the Private Sector

A review of the practices of other California state government agencies demonstrates that air filtration devices are not used by the Department of General Services, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or other state agencies for state-owned buildings. A similar review of the practices of public and private universities in California has failed to demonstrate any regular use of air filtration devices in their facilities during the occasions of wildfires.

7. Judicial Council-Permitted and Judicial Council-Funded Deployment of Air Filtration Devices

7.1 Given the lack of improvement in indoor air quality as defined by PM2.5 levels with the use of air filtration devices and the lack of use by public agencies and the private sector, the Judicial Council will not fund the deployment of air filtration devices in trial court facilities.

7.2 Courts occupying Judicial Council-owned and Judicial Council-managed facilities may utilize air filtration devices at their own expense.

8. Other Mitigation Measures

8.1 When the outdoor Air Quality Index for PM2.5 is 151 or greater, building operators of mechanical ventilation systems in Judicial Council-owned and Judicial Council-managed facilities may minimize the quantity of outside air provided to the extent feasible to mitigate the impact of wildfire smoke.

8.2 Any deviation from the standard operations of mechanical ventilation systems in Judicial Council-owned and Judicial Council-managed facilities must be coordinated with Judicial Council Facility Services staff.

8.3 Employers may provide respirators, such as N95 filtering facepiece respirators, to all employees for voluntary use in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 5144. The Judicial Council will not be responsible for provision of respirators to employees of other entities, court users or the public.


3

8.4 Further, when conditions warrant it, a court may curtail or fully close in-person operations and/or rely on remote access to provide continuing public services when air pollution is at such an extreme level that it is prudent to do so.

9. Questions Regarding Facility Operations During Wildfires

Judicial Council Facility Services staff are available to assist with questions regarding facility operations during wildfires.

Following are wildfire smoke impact reports for three courthouses: 1. Redding Main Courthouse, Annex and Modular 2. Placerville Main Street Courthouse 3. South Lake Tahoe Johnson Building

www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services

October 4, 2021

Wildfire Smoke Impact Report: IEQ Investigation Study

Shasta County Superior Court 45-A1 Main Courthouse Proper45-A7 Courthouse Annex1500 Court Street, Redding, CA

45-A9 Justice Center Court Modular1655 West Street, Redding, CA

Prepared for:

Jennifer Chappelle Manager, Risk Management Judicial Council of California 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95833 916-263-1945 | [email protected]

Prepared By: Diana Lutsik Forensic Analytical Consulting Services 7625 Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 104 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 619-726-1303 | [email protected]

FACS Project #PJ66116 JCC SWO #1707761, 1707756, 1707751




Contents Introduction ................................................................................. 1

Scope of Work ................................................................................... 1

Site History and Characterization ............................................. 2

Data Collection Methodology ...................................................... 2

Findings and Observations.......................................................... 3

Discussion........................................................................................... 4

Limitations........................................................................................... 5

Appendix A: PM2.5 AQI Data Summary Tables ................. 6

Appendix B: PM2.5 Data Figures ............................................. 7

Appendix D: Site Diagrams ......................................................... 8

JCC Shasta County Superior Court – Main Courthouse, Courthouse Annex, and Justice Center Court Modular WFS IEQ Investigation (10/04/2021)


1 of 5

Introduction

Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, Inc. (FACS) was retained by the Judicial Council of California (Client, hereafter JCC) to perform an Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Investigation in the Shasta County Superior Court Main Courthouse Proper (45-A1), and Courthouse Annex (45-A7) located at 1500 Court Street in Redding, California, as well as the Justice Center Court Modular (45-A9) located at 1655 West Street in Redding, California. This investigation was prompted by the McFarland Fire in the McFarland Ridge and Baker Flat, west of Platina and Dixie Fire above the Cresta Dam in the Feather River Canyon. Both of which were still burning during FACS’ investigation.

The purpose of this investigation was to 1) conduct baseline air monitoring for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) as it relates to air quality index (AQI) values; 2) provide assistance in identifying the number of portable air filtration devices needed to provide an additional two air changes per hour in the facility; 3) conduct air monitoring for PM2.5 following the use of air filtration devices (AFDs); and 4) analyze the PM2.5 AQI data in order to assist in determining if the use of AFDs in the building contribute to improved indoor environmental quality.

The investigation was performed by FACS between the dates of August 17, 2021 and August 30, 2021, with the baseline monitoring taking place from August 17, 2021 through August 23, 2021. This report contains the findings from our investigation.

Scope of Work

In the course of this project, FACS conducted the following scope of work:

1. Development of a history and site characterization (see sections below).

2. Collection of a baseline PM2.5 data (prior to implementation of AFDs) using TSI DustTrak™ IIAerosol Monitors at two (2) exterior location and seventeen (17) interior locations.

3. Provide assistance in identifying the number of portable air filtration devices needed to provide anadditional two air changes per hour in the facility.

4. Collection of PM2.5 data, post implementation of AFDs using TSI DustTrak™ II Aerosol Monitorsat two (2) exterior location and seventeen (17) interior locations (same locations as baselinemonitoring). Some monitors were removed during a portion of the evaluation, to assist incollection of data from other JCC facilities.

5. Generation of a data comparison tables, figures, and final report.

Data collection methodologies are described in the body of this report. The data collected in the course of the investigation is presented in this report as follows:

• Appendix A: PM2.5 AQI Data Summary Tables

• Appendix B: PM2.5 Data Figures

• Appendix C: Site Diagrams


2 of 5 JCC Shasta County Superior Court – Main Courthouse, Courthouse Annex, and Justice Center Court Modular WFS IEQ Investigation (10/04/2021)

Site History and Characterization

On July 29, 2021, the McFarland Fire erupted in McFarland Ridge, south of Highway 36. The wildfire burned in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest north of Wildwood in Trinity County, Shasta County, and Tehama County, and was deemed as contained on September 16, 2021. Additionally, on July 14, 2021, the Dixie Fire erupted in Feather River Canyon near Cresta Dam. Both wildfires were reportedly negatively impacting air quality in Redding, CA.

JCC contacted FACS on August 17, 2021, requesting an immediate mobilization to conduct the IEQ investigation in the Superior Court of Shasta County – the Main Courthouse Proper (45-A1) and Courthouse Annex (45-A7) buildings located at 1500 Court Street in Redding, CA, and the Justice Center Court Modular located at 1655 West Street in Redding, CA.

The Courthouse Proper building is an approximately 44,528 square feet, 3-story building (plus basement) built in 1956. The Courthouse Annex is an approximately 35,445 square feet, 3-story building added on to the main courthouse in 1965. The exterior construction is characterized by concrete block and mortar. The interior of the Courthouse Proper and Annex buildings is generally characterized by gypsum drywall walls and dropped ceilings. Flooring generally consists of carpeting and vinyl floor tile. The building features operable windows, which were observed to be closed during FACS’ investigation. Air is supplied to the building through multiple roof-top heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. The units are reportedly set to run continuously 24 hours a day, seven days a week, due to internal COVID-19 protocols.

The Justice Center Court Modular building is an approximately 4,320 square feet, single-story building built in 2008. The exterior construction is characterized by vertical wood siding. The interior construction of the building is generally characterized by wall partitions and dropped ceilings. Flooring generally consisted of carpeting. The building features operable windows, which were observed to be closed during FACS’ investigation. Air is supplied to the building through multiple HVAC units. The units are reportedly set to run continuously 24 hours a day, seven days a week, due to internal COVID-19 protocols.

Data Collection Methodology

Per client’s request, FACS’ IEQ investigation was limited to PM2.5 airborne particulates (particulates less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter). FACS performed monitoring of baseline conditions (pre implementation of the secondary air filtration devices), followed by PM2.5 monitoring post implementations of the AFDs in selected locations of the buildings.

Baseline testing (pre-operation of AFDs) was performed from between the dates of August 17, 2021 and August 23, 2021 with the primary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical filtration system operating in the building. The AFDs were reportedly deployed at selected locations in the building on August 24, 2021. Following installation and operation of the AFDs, air monitoring continued from August 24, 2021 through August 30, 2021.

Air monitoring was conducted using direct-reading data-logging DustTrak™ II Aerosol Monitors. The DustTrak™ II desktop monitor is a light-scattering laser photometer that provided real-time aerosol mass concentration readings. The DustTrak™ DRX II Aerosol Monitor reports a mass concentration using the PM2.5 particulate size fraction and reported in milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). Readings were collected at 10-minute log intervals over the monitoring duration.



A total of nineteen (19) monitors were deployed at the following locations:

• Exterior, roof at outdoor air intake (monitor #8)• Exterior, annex near elevators (monitor #12)• Courthouse Proper, basement hallway (monitor #13)• Courthouse Proper, 1st floor at Security (monitor #1)• Courthouse Proper, 1st floor, Office 100 Jury Room (monitor #2)• Courthouse Proper, 2nd floor, Marshal’ s Office Room 206 (monitor #5)• Courthouse Proper, 3rd floor, Department 4 Room 308 (monitor #6)• Courthouse Proper, 3rd floor, Department 3 Room 304 (monitor #18)• Courthouse Proper, 3rd floor, Department 5 (monitor #19)• Courthouse Annex, 1st floor, Room 117 Jury Assembly Area (monitor #3)• Courthouse Annex, 1st floor, Room 112 Clerks Office (monitor #11)• Courthouse Annex, 2nd floor, adjacent to staircase (monitor #4)• Courthouse Annex, 2nd floor, Department 9 Room 112 (monitor #10)• Courthouse Annex, 3rd floor, hallway (monitor #7)• Courthouse Annex, 3rd floor, Room 319 (monitor #9)• Justice Center Court Modular, Jury Room (monitor #14)• Justice Center Court Modular, office (monitor #15)• Justice Center Court Modular, Court Staff (monitor #16)• Justice Center Court Modular, hallway (monitor #17)

See site diagrams in Appendix C for specific locations.

Monitors #6, 9, 12, 15, and 17 were removed from the Shasta County Superior Court facilities on August 27, 2021, in order to accommodate a new wildfire smoke investigation request in the South Lake Tahoe Branch of the El Dorado County Superior Court.

Results of the airborne particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring following implementation of the AFDs were compared to the baseline air monitoring in order to evaluate the effectiveness of air filtration devices during heavy wildfire smoke impact.

Air quality index (AQI) values were calculated using the PM2.5 data collected during the investigation. The AQI value for PM2.5 data that was collected prior to the installation of AFDs, between 8/17/21 and 8/23/21, was calculated between 7am-6pm (typical work shift). Following installation of AFDs, AQI values were also calculated using the average PM2.5 concentration measured between 7am-6pm (typical work shift).

Findings and Observations

The following findings were generated by FACS as a result of this investigation:

• It was reported to FACS that outdoor air intakes for the air handling units serving the buildingswere closed during the monitoring event.

• A total of eleven (11) AFDs were deployed and operated in the building during FACS’investigation. Ten (10) of the AFDs were rated to deliver 2,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM), andone (1) was rated to deliver 500 CFM, delivering a total of 20,500 CFM of air. The AFD locationswere observed to be as follows:

JCC Shasta County Superior Court – Main Courthouse, Courthouse Annex, and Justice Center Court Modular WFS IEQ Investigation (10/04/2021)


4 of 5

o Courthouse Proper – four (4) 2,000 CFM AFDs and one (1) 500 CFM AFD, for a total of8,500 CFM of air

1. Courthouse Proper, basement, hallway adjacent to Mechanical Room2. Courthouse Proper, 1st floor, hallway adjacent to the Courthouse Annex entrance3. Courthouse Proper, 1st floor, hallway adjacent to Office 1004. Courthouse Proper, 2nd floor, hallway adjacent to an office and hallway to Annex5. Courthouse Proper, 3rd floor, hallway adjacent to Department 3 Room 304

o Courthouse Annex – four (4) 2,000 CFM AFDs, for a total of 8,000 CFM of air1. Courthouse Annex, 1st floor, hallway adjacent to the restrooms2. Courthouse Annex, 2nd floor, hallway adjacent to the restrooms3. Courthouse Annex, 2nd floor, lobby4. Courthouse Annex, 3rd floor, hallway adjacent to the restrooms

o Justice Center Court Modular – two (2) 2,000 CFM AFDs, for a total of 4,000 CFM of air1. Justice Center Court Modular, hallway adjacent to the Judge’s Chamber2. Justice Center Court Modular, hallway adjacent to the Clerk’s Office

• Upon FACS’ mobilization to the Shasta County Superior Court on August 17, 2021, a smoke odorwas observed in the interior of the buildings as well as outside the buildings. Additionally, a cloudof smoke was observed in the area and visible smoke related particulate (i.e., char, ash) wasobserved on exterior surfaces of the building. Visible smoke related particulate was observed atentry door thresholds and in the interior of the building in locations directly adjacent to theentrances.

• Upon return to the site on August 30, 2021, to retrieve equipment FACS observed odorsappearing milder and visibility had improved.

Discussion

In general, the purpose of this investigation was to assist in determining if the use of AFDs in the building contributes to improvement of indoor environmental quality for occupants during large wildfire events. Baseline data collected without the use of AFDs was compared to data collected during the use of the AFDs. Comparison was performed by calculating the difference in concentrations between the outdoor and indoor locations during a typical work shift (7 am – 6 pm) for each of the sampling events. Results of the air monitoring assessment, along with calculated values (% of outdoor, AQI levels) are provided in Tables 1 and 2.

Additionally, data graphically plotted showed a direct correlation between the outdoor particulate concentrations and the indoor particulate concentrations. During spikes in PM2.5 concentrations in the outdoor locations, spikes in indoor locations were also identified at the same time or shortly thereafter. This was identified with and without the use of AFDs in the buildings. See Figures 1 – 15.

In general, the data did not indicate consistent improvement of air quality when operating the AFDs. Additionally, the outdoor air quality appears to have a heavy influence on the indoor air quality. Based on results of the limited assessment, the use of eleven air filtration devices in the Courthouse Proper, Courthouse Annex, and Justice Center Court Modular buildings did not appear to consistently improve air quality throughout the facility. No notable improvement was identified in the data collected in the any areas assessed including locations where AFDs were operating (e.g., Courthouse Proper Room 304).



Limitations

This investigation is limited to the conditions and practices observed and information made available to FACS. The methods, conclusions and recommendations provided are based on FACS’ judgment, expertise, and the standard of practice for professional service. They are subject to the limitations and variability inherent in the methodology employed. As with all environmental investigations, this investigation is limited to the defined scope and does not purport to set forth all hazards, nor indicate that other hazards do not exist.

Please do not hesitate to contact our offices at 916-726-1303 with any questions or concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to assist Judicial Council of California in promoting a more healthful environment.

Respectfully, Reviewed by:

FORENSIC ANALYTICAL FORENSIC ANALYTICAL

Diana Lutsik Michelle Rosales, MPH, CIH Project Manager, Sacramento Principal Consultant


Appendix A

Appendix A

PM2.5 AQI Data Summary Tables

Table 1: Redding - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/17/21 to 8/23/21 (Without Air Filtering Devices)

Notes: 1.AQI for PM2.5 data was calculated using the average PM2.5 concentration measured during 7am-6pm on the day of monitoring. 2. “>500” indicates that values are above an AQI of 500, which is considered beyond the AQI. 3. “NA” indicates no measurement taken.

PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)

EXTERIORExterior - Roof by Air Intake NA NA 183 234 254 304 209 259 152 203 182 232 101 174

Exterior - Annex Near Elevator NA NA 212 262 284 327 223 273 166 217 201 251 132 190

Exterior - Average 198 269 216 159 191 116

INTERIOR - COURTHOUSE PROPER (MAIN BUILDING)Monitor #1 (Front Security) 138 194 107 178 115 182 90 169 72 160 80 164 49 135

% of Outdoor 54% 43% 42% 45% 42% 42%

Monitor #2 (Office 100 Jury Rm) 116 182 72 160 100 174 77 162 62 155 74 160 42 118

% of Outdoor 37% 37% 36% 39% 39% 36%

Monitor #5 (Marshalls Office Rm 206) 82 164 84 166 112 180 88 168 72 159 83 165 46 127

% of Outdoor 42% 42% 41% 45% 43% 40%Monitor #6 (3rd Fl Dept 4 Rm 308) 43 119 142 196 189 239 150 221 113 181 138 194 80 164

% of Outdoor 72% 70% 70% 71% 72% 69%

Monitor #13 (Basement Hallway) NA NA 56 151 79 163 62 154 48 131 57 152 28 85

% of Outdoor 28% 29% 29% 30% 30% 24%

Monitor #18 (3rd Fl Dept Rm 304) NA NA 104 176 140 195 114 181 85 166 103 175 55 149

% of Outdoor 53% 52% 53% 54% 54% 47%Monitor #19 (Dept 5 -3rd Fl Proper) NA NA 52 143 127 188 86 167 56 151 67 157 37 106

% of Outdoor 27% 47% 40% 35% 35% 32%INTERIOR - ANNEX

Monitor #3 (Room 117) 76 162 61 154 76 162 62 154 46 127 56 151 30 88

% of Outdoor 31% 28% 29% 29% 29% 25%Monitor #4 (Adj. 2nd Fl Staircase) 66 157 63 155 84 166 68 157 49 133 59 153 30 88

% of Outdoor 32% 31% 32% 30% 31% 25%Monitor #7 (3rd Fl Hallway) 51 139 68 157 90 169 71 159 53 145 64 156 31 90

% of Outdoor 34% 33% 33% 33% 34% 27%

Monitor #9 (3rd Fl Rm 319) NA NA 61 154 89 168 79 163 54 147 65 156 39 110

% of Outdoor 31% 33% 37% 34% 34% 33%Monitor #10 (2nd Fl Dept 9 Rm 112) NA NA 28 84 38 108 28 84 19 65 23 75 13 53

% of Outdoor 14% 14% 13% 12% 12% 11%Monitor #11 (1st Fl Rm 112) NA NA 56 151 76 161 64 155 49 135 59 153 30 89

% of Outdoor 28% 28% 30% 31% 31% 26%INTERIOR - PORTABLESMonitor #14 (Portables - Jury Rm) NA NA 99 173 154 205 108 178 86 167 98 173 55 149

% of Outdoor 50% 57% 50% 54% 51% 47%

Monitor #15 (Portables Office) NA NA 70 158 98 173 64 155 NA NA NA NA NA NA

% of Outdoor 35% 36% 30%Monitor #16 (Portables Court Staff) NA NA 260 308 305 345 253 303 193 243 234 284 105 177

% of Outdoor 131% 113% 117% 121% 122% 90%Monitor #17 (Portables Hallway) NA NA 12 50 4 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% of Outdoor 6% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

AQI AQI AQI AQI AQIAQI

Location8/17/2021 8/19/2021 8/20/2021 8/21/20218/18/2021

AQI

8/22/2021 8/23/2021Without AFDs

Table 2: Redding - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) –8/24/21 to 8/30/21 (With Air Filtering Devices)

Notes: 1.AQI for PM2.5 data was calculated using the average PM2.5 concentration measured during 7am-6pm on the day of monitoring. 2. “>500” indicates that values are above an AQI of 500, which is considered beyond the AQI. 3. “NA” indicates no measurement taken.

PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)

EXTERIORExterior - Roof by Air Intake 98 173 57 152 259 308 63 155 154 205 218 268 512 510

Exterior - Annex Near Elevator NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exterior - Average 98 57 259 63 154 218 512

INTERIOR - COURTHOUSE PROPER (MAIN BUILDING)Monitor #1 (Front Security) 51 139 30 88 69 158 29 87 51 140 74 160 125 187

% of Outdoor 52% 52% 27% 47% 33% 34% 24%

Monitor #2 (Office 100 Jury Rm) 39 109 23 74 67 157 28 84 56 151 82 165 198 248

% of Outdoor 39% 41% 26% 45% 36% 38% 39%

Monitor #5 (Marshalls Office Rm 206) 43 121 25 78 78 163 29 87 63 155 90 169 169 219

% of Outdoor 44% 44% 30% 47% 41% 41% 33%Monitor #6 (3rd Fl Dept 4 Rm 308) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

% of OutdoorMonitor #13 (Basement Hallway) 18 64 11 48 34 97 13 53 24 77 35 98 73 160

% of Outdoor 18% 20% 13% 21% 16% 16% 14%

Monitor #18 (3rd Fl Dept Rm 304) 51 140 30 88 119 184 36 101 82 165 112 180 216 266

% of Outdoor 52% 52% 46% 57% 53% 51% 42%Monitor #19 (Dept 5 -3rd Fl Proper) 32 93 22 72 56 151 23 75 51 140 75 161 137 193

% of Outdoor 33% 38% 22% 37% 33% 34% 27%INTERIOR - ANNEX

Monitor #3 (Room 117) 28 84 16 59 57 152 17 61 39 110 54 146 104 176

% of Outdoor 28% 27% 22% 27% 25% 25% 20%Monitor #4 (Adj. 2nd Fl Staircase) 20 68 11 47 46 127 15 56 31 91 42 116 83 165

% of Outdoor 20% 20% 18% 23% 20% 19% 16%Monitor #7 (3rd Fl Hallway) 21 71 12 51 53 145 16 60 35 99 45 124 79 163

% of Outdoor 22% 21% 21% 26% 23% 20% 15%

Monitor #9 (3rd Fl Rm 319) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

% of OutdoorMonitor #10 (2nd Fl Dept 9 Rm 112) 13 52 9 36 38 106 10 40 19 66 25 79 58 152

% of Outdoor 13% 15% 15% 15% 13% 12% 11%Monitor #11 (1st Fl Rm 112) 27 83 16 59 58 152 17 61 38 108 54 145 105 177

% of Outdoor 28% 28% 23% 27% 25% 25% 20%INTERIOR - PORTABLESMonitor #14 (Portables - Jury Rm) 43 120 24 76 97 172 40 112 79 163 109 179 185 235

% of Outdoor 44% 42% 37% 64% 51% 50% 36%

Monitor #15 (Portables Office) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

% of OutdoorMonitor #16 (Portables Court Staff) 87 167 48 131 172 222 68 157 128 188 179 229 400 420

% of Outdoor 88% 83% 66% 108% 83% 82% 78%Monitor #17 (Portables Hallway) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

% of Outdoor

AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI

8/28/2021 8/29/2021 8/30/2021

AQI

8/27/2021Location

8/24/2021 8/25/2021 8/26/2021With Air Filtering Devices (AFDs)


Appendix B

Appendix B

PM2.5 Data Figures

Figure 1: Redding - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/17/21 to 8/30/21 (All Data)

Notes: 1. AQI was calculated for a point in time using the measured point-in-time PM2.5 concentration. AQI is typically calculated for a 1-hour or 24-hour average.

Figure 2: Redding - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/17/21 (Without Air Filtering Devices)


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

18:00 20:00 22:00

8/17/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/17/21 (w/o AFDs)

Exterior - Roof by Air Intake Exterior - Near Elevator Monitor #1 (Front Security)

Monitor #2 (Office 100 Jury Rm) Monitor #3 (Room 117) Monitor #4 (Adj. 2nd Fl Staircase)

Monitor #5 (Marshalls Office Rm 206) Monitor #6 (3rd Fl Dept 4 Rm 308) Monitor #7 (3rd Fl Hallway)

Monitor #9 (3rd Fl Rm 319) Monitor #10 (2nd Fl Dept 9 Rm 112) Monitor #11 (1st Fl Rm 112)

Monitor #13 (Basement Hallway) Monitor #14 (Portables - Jury Rm) Monitor #15 (Portables Office)

Monitor #16 (Portables Court Staff) Monitor #17 (Portables Hallway) Monitor #18 (3rd Fl Dept Rm 304)

Monitor #19 (Dept 5 -3rd Fl Proper)

Figure 3: Redding - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/18/21 7am-6pm (Without Air Filtering Devices)


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/18/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/18/21 (w/o AFDs)










0

100

200

300

400

500

600

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00

8/19/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/19/21 (w/o AFDs)










0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/20/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/20/21 (w/o AFDs)










0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/21/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/21/21 (w/o AFDs)










0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/22/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/22/21 (w/o AFDs)

Exterior - Roof by Air Intake Exterior - Near Elevator Monitor #1 (Front Security) Monitor #2 (Office 100 Jury Rm)

Monitor #3 (Room 117) Monitor #4 (Adj. 2nd Fl Staircase) Monitor #5 (Marshalls Office Rm 206) Monitor #6 (3rd Fl Dept 4 Rm 308)

Monitor #7 (3rd Fl Hallway) Monitor #9 (3rd Fl Rm 319) Monitor #10 (2nd Fl Dept 9 Rm 112) Monitor #11 (1st Fl Rm 112)

Monitor #13 (Basement Hallway) Monitor #14 (Portables - Jury Rm) Monitor #15 (Portables Office) Monitor #16 (Portables Court Staff)

Monitor #17 (Portables Hallway) Monitor #18 (3rd Fl Dept Rm 304) Monitor #19 (Dept 5 -3rd Fl Proper)



0

50

100

150

200

250

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/23/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/23/21 (w/o AFDs)








Figure 9: Redding - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/24/21 7am-6pm (With Air Filtering Devices)


0

50

100

150

200

250

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/24/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/24/21 (w/ AFDs)










0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/25/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/25/21 (w/ AFDs)










0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/26/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/26/21 (w/ AFDs)










0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/27/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/27/21 (w/ AFDs)










0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/28/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

IPM2.5 AQI 8/28/21 (w/ AFDs)










0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/29/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/29/21 (w/ AFDs)










0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

8:00 10:00 12:00

8/30/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/30/21 (w/ AFDs)









Appendix C

Appendix C

Site Diagrams

P: 916.726.1303Citrus Heights, California7625 Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 104

DATE: 08/17/2021- 08/30/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66116

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik

CLIENT: Judicial Council of CaliforniaPROJECT: Wildfire Smoke Impact

IEQ Investigation Study

LOCATION: Shasta County Superior Court (45-A1)1500 Court Street, Redding, CA

SHEETNUMBER:

S(1-1)

LEGEND

: Air filtration device locations

Monitor #13Hallway adj to Mechanical Room


DATE: 08/17/2021- 08/30/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66116

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik




SHEETNUMBER:

S(1-2)

LEGEND


Monitor #1At Security

Monitor #2Office 100 Jury Room


DATE: 08/17/2021- 08/30/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66116

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik




SHEETNUMBER:

S(1-3)

LEGEND


Monitor #5Marshal's Office 206


DATE: 08/17/2021- 08/30/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66116

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik




SHEETNUMBER:

S(1-4)

LEGEND


Monitor #6Department 4 Room 308

Monitor #19Department 5



DATE: 08/17/2021- 08/30/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66116

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik



LOCATION: Shasta County Superior Court Annex (45-A7)1500 Court Street, Redding, CA

SHEETNUMBER:

S(2-1)

LEGEND


Monitor #12Exterior near elevators

Monitor #3Room 117 Jury Assembly Area

Monitor #11Room 112 Clerks Office


DATE: 08/17/2021- 08/30/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66116

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik




SHEETNUMBER:

S(2-2)

LEGEND



Monitor #4Adjacent to staircase


DATE: 08/17/2021- 08/30/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66116

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik




SHEETNUMBER:

S(2-3)

LEGEND


Monitor #7Hallway

Monitor #9Room 319


DATE: 08/17/2021- 08/30/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66116

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik



LOCATION: Shasta County Superior Court Annex (45-A7)1655 West Street, Redding, CA

SHEETNUMBER:

S(3-1)

LEGEND

: Air filtration device locationsMonitor #14Jury Room

Monitor #16Court Staff

Monitor #15Office

Monitor #17Hallway

Right People Right Perspective

Right Now

www.forensicanalytical.com


October 5, 2021


El Dorado County Superior Court (09-A1) 495 Main Street Placerville, CA 95667 Prepared for: Jennifer Chappelle Manager, Risk Management Judicial Council of California 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95833 916-263-1945 | [email protected] Prepared By:

Diana Lutsik Forensic Analytical Consulting Services 7625 Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 104 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 619-726-1303 | [email protected] FACS Project #PJ66306 JCC SWO #1709200




Contents Introduction ................................................................................ 1

Scope of Work ........................................................................... 1

Site History and Characterization ........................................ 1

Data Collection Methodology ................................................ 2

Findings and Observations .................................................... 3

Discussion .................................................................................. 3

Limitations .................................................................................. 4

Appendix A: PM2.5 AQI Data Summary Table ................. 5

Appendix B: PM2.5 AQI Data Figures ................................ 6

Appendix C: Site Diagrams ................................................... 7

JCC El Dorado County Superior Court 09-A1; WFS IEQ Investigation (10/05/2021)


1 of 4

Introduction

Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, Inc. (FACS) was retained by the Judicial Council of California (Client, hereafter JCC) to perform an Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Investigation in the El Dorado County Superior Court (09-A1) located at 495 Main Street in Placerville, California. This investigation was prompted by the Caldor Fire which was burning in areas of El Dorado County during the investigation.


The investigation was performed by FACS between the dates of August 26, 2021 and September 3, 2021. This report contains the findings from our investigation.

Scope of Work



2. Collection of a baseline PM2.5 data (prior implementation of AFDs) using TSI DustTrak™ II Aerosol Monitors at one exterior location and four interior locations.

3. Provide assistance in identifying the number of portable air filtration devices needed to provide an additional two air changes per hour in the facility.

4. Collection of PM2.5 data, post implementation of AFDs using TSI DustTrak™ II Aerosol Monitors at one exterior location and four interior locations (same locations as baseline monitoring).

5. Generation of a data comparison table, figures, and final report.


• Appendix A: PM2.5 AQI Data Summary Table




On August 14, 2021, the Caldor Fire erupted in El Dorado County, east of Omo Ranch and south of the Grizzly Flats community, negatively impacting the air quality in Placerville. JCC contacted FACS on August 26, 2021, requesting an immediate mobilization to conduct the IEQ investigation in the Superior Court of El Dorado County located at 495 Main Street in Placerville, CA.

The Main Street Branch of the Superior Court of El Dorado County is an approximately 18,560 square feet, three-story courthouse building originally built in 1913. The exterior construction is characterized by white concrete block and off-white mortar. The interior of the building is generally characterized by



2 of 4

painted gypsum drywall walls and dropped ceilings. Flooring generally consisted of vinyl floor tile or carpeting. The building features operable windows, which were observed to be closed during FACS’ investigation. Air is supplied to the building through multiple roof-top heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. The units are reportedly set to run continuously 24 hours a day, seven days a week, due to internal COVID-19 protocols

Data Collection Methodology Per client’s request, FACS’ IEQ investigation was limited to PM2.5 airborne particulates (particulates less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter). FACS performed monitoring of baseline conditions (prior to implementation of AFDs), followed by PM2.5 monitoring after implementation of the AFDs in selected locations of the building

Baseline testing (pre-operation of AFDs) was performed from 1830 hours on August 26, 2021, until approximately 0800 hours on August 27, 2021, with the primary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical filtration system operating in the building. The AFDs were deployed at selected locations in the building on August 27, 2021. Following installation and operation of the AFDs, air monitoring continued post implementation of AFDs in operation in addition to the primary mechanical filtration system from August 27, 2021 through September 3, 2021.

Air monitoring was conducted using direct-reading data-logging DustTrak™ II Aerosol Monitors. The DustTrak™ II desktop monitor is a light-scattering laser photometer that provided real-time aerosol mass concentrations readings. The DustTrak™ DRX II Aerosol Monitor reports a mass concentration using the PM2.5 particulate size fraction and reported in milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). Readings were collected at 10-minute log intervals over the monitoring duration.

A total of five (5) samples were collected and included the following locations:

• Exterior at lower roof parapet • 1st floor entry • 2nd floor entry • 2nd floor interior (Auditor Office) • 3rd floor interior (Board of Supervisors Office)



Air quality index (AQI) values were calculated using the PM2.5 data collected during the investigation. The AQI value for PM2.5 that was collected prior to the installation of AFDs, between 8/26/21-8/27/21 was calculated using the entire time duration (1830 hours on August 26, 2021 until approximately 0800 hours on August 27, 2021). Following installation of AFDs, AQI values were calculated using the average PM2.5 concentration measured between 7am-6pm (typical work shift).

Note, the monitor located at the 2nd floor entry appeared to malfunction on 9/1 and 9/2. Data collected during this time period is considered false and not included in the results table.



3 of 4



• It was reported to FACS that only the AHU serving the 3rd floor of the building had outdoor air intakes, which were reported as closed.

• Reportedly, a total of four (4) AFDs were deployed and operated in the building during FACS’ investigation. All units were rated to deliver 2,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM), delivering a total of 8,000 CFM of air. The AFD locations were reported to be as follows:

1. 1st floor lobby

2. 2nd floor lobby

3. 3rd floor lobby

4. Court room

• Upon FACS’ mobilization to the El Dorado County Superior Court on August 26, 2021, a strong smoke odor was observed on the third floor of the courthouse, in particular the 3rd floor courtrooms, as well as outside the building. A milder smoke odor was present throughout the 1st and 2nd floor of the building. Furthermore, visibility was very low outdoors and visible smoke related particulate (i.e., char, ash) was observed on exterior surfaces of the building. Visible smoke related particulate was observed at entry door thresholds and in the interior of the building in locations directly adjacent to the entrances.

• Upon return to the site to retrieve monitoring equipment on September 3, 2021, FACS observed smoke odors appearing milder and visibility had improved.

Discussion

In general, the purpose of this investigation was to assist in determining if the use of AFDs in the building contributes to improvement of indoor environmental quality for occupants during large wildfire events. Baseline data collected without the use of AFDs was compared to data collected during the use of the AFDs. Comparison was performed by calculating the difference in concentrations between the outdoor and indoor locations during a typical work shift (7 am – 6 pm) for each of the sampling events. Results of the air monitoring assessment, along with calculated values (% of outdoor, AQI levels) are provided in Table 1.


In general, the data did not indicate a consistent improvement of air quality when operating the AFDs. Additionally, the outdoor air quality appears to have a heavy influence on the indoor air quality. Slight improvements were identified in areas known to contain the air filtration devices (e.g., 1st floor entry). However, no identifiable improvements were noted for areas without AFDs operating in the space (e.g., 3rd floor interior). Improvement in air quality was observed at the 2nd floor entry, while improvement was not observed in the 2nd floor interior.



4 of 4

Based on results of the limited assessment, the use of four air filtration devices in the facility did not appear to consistently improve air quality throughout the facility, particularly when the outdoor air reached AQI levels greater than 500. Small improvements were identified but appeared to be localized to locations where AFDs were operating.

Limitations

This investigation is limited to the conditions and practices observed and information made available to FACS. The methods, conclusions and recommendations provided are based on FACS’ judgment, expertise and the standard of practice for professional service. They are subject to the limitations and variability inherent in the methodology employed. As with all environmental investigations, this investigation is limited to the defined scope and does not purport to set forth all hazards, nor indicate that other hazards do not exist.




Diana Lutsik Michelle Rosales, MPH, CIH Project Manager, Sacramento Principal Consultant


Appendix A

Appendix A

PM2.5 AQI Data Summary Table

Table 1: El Dorado Main (Placerville) PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Notes: 1. In general, average data collected from 7am-6pm is presented for each day of monitoring. Exceptions are as follows: Baseline PM2.5 data collected prior to implementation of air filtering devices (8/26-8/27) was for an overnight period from approximately 8pm on 8/26 to 6am on 8/27, and all consolidated data was averaged and presented for this baseline data. On 8/27/21, after AFDs were installed, air monitoring began again at 12pm; the average of data collected from 12pm-6pm was provided for that day under the column for 8/27/21 "with air filtering devices". On 9/3/21, the last day of monitoring, air monitoring ended at 8am; the average of data collected from 7am-8am was provided for that day. 2. “>500” indicates that values are above an AQI of 500, which is considered beyond the AQI.

PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)

Exterior - Roof 1020 914 2981 >500 1403 >500 1423 >500 466 473 114 181 60 153 287 330 2096 >500

1st Floor Entry 105 177 322 358 36 103 35 100 16 60 7 27 7 29 30 88 464 471

% of Outdoor 10% 11% 3% 2% 3% 6% 12% 10% 22%

2nd Floor Entry 102 175 352 382 53 145 45 125 29 86 14 56 0 0 0 0 548 >500

% of Outdoor 10% 12% 4% 3% 6% 12% 0% 0% 26%

2nd Floor Interior 41 115 269 316 317 354 263 311 69 158 16 59 17 62 68 157 153 203

% of Outdoor 4% 9% 23% 18% 15% 14% 28% 24% 7%

3rd Floor Interior 186 236 731 >500 259 307 258 307 111 180 29 86 17 61 78 163 177 227

% of Outdoor 18% 25% 18% 18% 24% 25% 28% 27% 8%

9/3/2021

AQI

With Air Filtering Devices (AFDs)

AQI

Exterior

Interior

9/2/2021

AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI

LocationWithout AFDs

8/26/2021 - 8/27/2021 8/27/2021

AQI

8/28/2021 8/29/2021 8/30/2021 8/31/2021 9/1/2021


Appendix B

Appendix B

PM2.5 Data Figures

Figure 1: El Dorado Main (Placerville) PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) - 8/27/21 (Without Air Filtering Devices)

Notes: 1. AQI was calculated for a point in time using the measured point-in-time PM2.5 concentration. AQI for PM2.5 is typically calculated for a 1-hour or 24-hour average.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

20:00 22:00 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 8/26/21 - 8/27/21 (Baseline Data; w/o AFDs)

Roof 1st Fl Entry 2nd Fl Entry 2nd Fl Interior 3rd Fl Interior

Figure 2: El Dorado Main (Placerville) PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/27/21 to 9/3/21 (With Air Filtering Devices)


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

450014

:00

16:0

018

:00

20:0

022

:00

0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:0

012

:00

14:0

016

:00

18:0

020

:00

22:0

00:

002:

004:

006:

008:

0010

:00

12:0

014

:00

16:0

018

:00

20:0

022

:00

0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:0

012

:00

14:0

016

:00

18:0

020

:00

22:0

00:

002:

004:

006:

008:

0010

:00

12:0

014

:00

16:0

018

:00

20:0

022

:00

0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:0

012

:00

14:0

016

:00

18:0

020

:00

22:0

00:

002:

004:

006:

008:

0010

:00

12:0

014

:00

16:0

018

:00

20:0

022

:00

0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

8/27/2021 8/28/2021 8/29/2021 8/30/2021 8/31/2021 9/1/2021 9/2/2021 9/3/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 8/27/21 - 9/3/21 (Data; w/ AFDs)

Exterior (Roof) 1st Fl Entry 2nd Fl Entry 2nd Fl Interior 3rd Fl Interior

Figure 3: El Dorado Main (Placerville) PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/27/21 (With Air Filtering Devices)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/27/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 8/27/21 (w/ AFDs)




0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/28/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 8/28/21 (w/ AFDs)




0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/29/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 8/29/21 (w/ AFDs)




0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/30/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 8/30/21 (w/ AFDs)




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/31/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 8/31/21 (w/ AFDs)




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

9/1/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 9/1/21 (w/ AFDs)




0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

9/2/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 9/2/21 (w/ AFDs)




0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

7:00 8:00

9/3/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

TIME

PM2.5 AQI 9/3/21 (w/ AFDs)



Appendix C

Appendix C

Site Diagrams


DATE: 08/26/2021- 09/03/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66306

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik



LOCATION: El Dorado County Superior Court (09-A1)495 Main Street, Placerville, CA 95667

SHEETNUMBER:

S(1-1)

: Sampling locations

1st floor entry8530213410

LEGEND

xxxxx


DATE: 08/26/2021- 09/03/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66306

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik




SHEETNUMBER:

S(1-1)

2nd floor interior8530213408

2nd floor entry8530213409


LEGEND

xxxxx


DATE: 08/26/2021- 09/03/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66306

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik




SHEETNUMBER:

S(1-1)

3rd floor interior8530213407

Exterior parapet room8530162710


LEGEND

xxxxx

Right People

Right Perspective

Right Now



October 5, 2021


El Dorado County Superior Court (09-E1) Johnson Building 1354 Johnson Blvd. #2 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Prepared for: Jennifer Chappelle Manager, Risk Management Judicial Council of California 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95833 916-263-1945 | [email protected] Prepared By:

Diana Lutsik Forensic Analytical Consulting Services 7625 Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 104 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 619-726-1303 | [email protected] FACS Project #PJ66225 JCC SWO #1708565




Contents Introduction ................................................................................ 1

Scope of Work ........................................................................... 1

Site History and Characterization ........................................ 1

Data Collection Methodology ................................................ 2

Findings and Observations .................................................... 3

Discussion .................................................................................. 3

Limitations .................................................................................. 4

Appendix A: PM2.5 AQI Data Summary Tables ............... 5

Appendix B: PM2.5 AQI Data Figures ................................ 6

Appendix C: Site Diagrams .................................................. 7

JCC El Dorado County Superior Court 09-E1; WFS IEQ Investigation (10/05/2021)


1 of 4

Introduction

Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, Inc. (FACS) was retained by the Judicial Council of California (Client, hereafter JCC) to perform an Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Investigation in the South Lake Tahoe Branch of the El Dorado County Superior Court (09-E1) located at 1354 Johnson Boulevard, #2 in South Lake Tahoe, California. This investigation was prompted by the Caldor Fire which was burning in areas of El Dorado County during the investigation.


The investigation was performed by FACS between the dates of August 23, 2021 and September 3, 2021. This report contains the findings from our investigation.

Scope of Work



2. Collection of baseline PM2.5 data (prior to implementation of AFDs) using TSI DustTrak™ II Aerosol Monitors at one exterior location and four interior locations.

3. Provide assistance in identifying the number of portable air filtration devices needed to provide an additional two air changes per hour in the facility.

4. Collection of PM2.5 data, post implementation of AFDs, using TSI DustTrak™ II Aerosol Monitors at one exterior location and four interior locations (same locations as baseline monitoring).

5. Generation of a data comparison table, figures, and final report.


• Appendix A: PM2.5 AQI Data Summary Table




On August 14, 2021, the Caldor Fire erupted in El Dorado County, east of Omo Ranch and south of the Grizzly Flats community, negatively impacting the air quality in South Lake Tahoe. JCC contacted FACS on August 23, 2021, requesting an immediate mobilization to conduct the IEQ investigation in the South Lake Tahoe Branch of the Superior Court of El Dorado County located at 1354 Johnson Boulevard #2 in South Lake Tahoe, CA.



2 of 4

The South Lake Tahoe Branch of the Superior Court of El Dorado County is an approximately 37,453 square feet, two-story courthouse building built in 1974. The exterior construction is characterized by wood siding and decorative stone. The interior of the building is generally characterized by painted gypsum drywall walls and dropped ceilings. Flooring generally consists of ceramic floor tile or carpeting. The building features operable windows, which were observed to be closed during FACS’ investigation. Air is supplied to the building through multiple roof-top heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. The units are reportedly set to run continuously 24 hours a day, seven days a week, due to internal COVID-19 protocols.

Data Collection Methodology

Per client’s request, FACS’ IEQ investigation was limited to PM2.5 airborne particulates (particulates less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter). FACS performed monitoring of baseline conditions (prior to implementation of AFDs), followed by PM2.5 monitoring after implementation of the AFDs in selected locations of the building.

Baseline testing (pre-operation of AFDs) was performed from approximately 1900 hours on August 23, 2021, until approximately 0700 hours on August 24, 2021, with the primary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical filtration system operating in the building. The AFDs were deployed at selected locations in the building on August 24, 2021. Following installation and operation of the AFDs, air monitoring continued from August 24, 2021, through September 3, 2021.

Air monitoring was conducted using direct-reading data-logging DustTrak™ II Aerosol Monitors. The DustTrak™ II desktop monitor is a light-scattering laser photometer that provided real-time aerosol mass concentration readings. The DustTrak™ DRX II Aerosol Monitor reports a mass concentration using the PM2.5 particulate size fraction and reported in milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). Readings were collected at 10-minute log intervals over the monitoring duration.

A total of five (5) monitors were deployed at the following locations:

• Exterior balcony • 1st floor entry adjacent to Security • 1st floor Court Room • 1st floor Employee Hall • 2nd floor Judges Chamber



Air quality index (AQI) values were calculated using the PM2.5 data collected during the investigation. The AQI value for PM2.5 data that was collected prior to the installation of AFDs, between 8/23/21 and 8/24/21, was calculated using the entire time duration (1900 hours on August 23, 2021, until approximately 0700 hours on August 24, 2021). Following installation of AFDs, AQI values were calculated using the average PM2.5 concentration measured between 7am-6pm (typical work shift).

Note, the monitor located at the 1st floor Court Room appeared to malfunction on 8/24 and was removed by FACS. Data collected during this time period is considered false and not included in the results tables.



3 of 4



• It was reported to FACS that the outdoor air intakes for the air handling units serving the building were closed during the monitoring event.

• A total of six (6) AFDs were deployed and operated in the building during FACS’ investigation. Three units were rated to deliver 2,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) and three units were rated to deliver 500 CFM; delivering a total of 7,500 CFM of air. The AFD locations were observed to be as follows:

1. 2,000 CFM AFD in the lobby of the lower level

2. 2,000 CFM AFD in the Employee Hall of the lower level

3. 500 CFM AFD in Department 4 of the lower level

4. 2,000 CFM AFD in the hallway near Department 3 on the upper level

5. 500 CFM AFD in the Clerk’s Office on the upper level

6. 500 CFM AFD in the northeast room of the upper level

• Upon FACS’ mobilization to the South Lake Tahoe Branch of the El Dorado County Superior Court on August 23, 2021, a strong smoke was odor was observed inside and outside the building. Furthermore, visibility was very low outdoors and visible smoke related particulate (i.e., char, ash) was observed on exterior surfaces of the building. Visible smoke related particulate was observed at entry door thresholds and in the interior of the building in locations directly adjacent to the entrances.

• Upon return to the site on September 9, 2021, to retrieve equipment, FACS observed that smoke odors were milder and visibility had improved. Equipment was picked-up by FACS upon the lifting of the mandatory evacuation orders in South Lake Tahoe; however, the DustTrak™ DRX II Aerosol Monitors’ storage memory was exhausted on September 3, 2021. Therefore, FACS’ air monitoring event ended on September 3, 2021.

Discussion

In general, the purpose of this investigation was to assist in determining if the use of AFDs in the building contributes to improvement of indoor environmental quality for occupants during large wildfire events. Baseline data collected without the use of AFDs was compared to data collected during the use of the AFDs. Comparison was performed by calculating the difference in concentrations between the outdoor and indoor locations during a typical work shift (7 am – 6 pm) for each of the sampling events. Results of the air monitoring assessment, along with calculated values (% of outdoor, AQI levels) are provided in Tables 1 – 3.


In general, the data did not indicate consistent improvement of air quality when operating the AFDs. Additionally, the outdoor air quality appears to have a heavy influence on the indoor air quality. Slight



4 of 4

improvements were identified in areas known to contain the air filtration devices (e.g., lower-level front entry and upper-level Judges Chamber). However, no identifiable improvements were noted for areas without AFDs operating in the space.

Based on results of the limited assessment, the use of six air filtration devices in the facility did not appear to consistently improve air quality throughout the facility, particularly when the outdoor air reached AQI levels greater than 500. Small improvements were identified but appeared to be localized to locations where AFDs were operating.

Limitations

This investigation is limited to the conditions and practices observed and information made available to FACS. The methods, conclusions and recommendations provided are based on FACS’ judgment, expertise and the standard of practice for professional service. They are subject to the limitations and variability inherent in the methodology employed. As with all environmental investigations, this investigation is limited to the defined scope and does not purport to set forth all hazards, nor indicate that other hazards do not exist.




Diana Lutsik Lydia Feng, MS, CIH Project Manager, Sacramento Senior Project Manager


Appendix A

Appendix A

PM2.5 AQI Data Summary Tables

Table 1: El Dorado SLT - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/23/21 to 8/24/21 (Without Air Filtering Devices)

Location Without AFDs

8/23/2021 8/24/2021

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

(µg/m3) (µg/m3) Exterior

Exterior - Balcony 2718 >500 637 >500

Interior Adjacent

Front Security

702 >500 205 255

% of Outdoor 26% 32%

Employee Hall 941 >500 245 295


Judges Chamber 525 >500 149 199


Notes: 1. AQI for PM2.5 data that was collected following implementation of air filtering devices (8/24/21-9/3/21) was calculated using the average PM2.5 concentration measured during 7am-6pm on the day of monitoring. AQI for PM2.5 data that was collected prior to implementation of air filtering devices (8/23-8/24) included all measurement data including data outside of 7am-6pm. 2. “>500” indicates that values are above an AQI of 500, which is considered beyond the AQI.

Table 2: El Dorado SLT - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) –8/24/21 to 8/28/21 (With Air Filtering Devices)

Location With Air Filtering Devices (AFDs)

8/24/2021 8/25/2021 8/26/2021 8/27/2021 8/28/2021

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) Exterior

Exterior - Balcony 855 >500 617 >500 1011 >500 1536 >500 281 326

Interior Adjacent

Front Security

166 217 121 185 180 231 306 345 52 141

% of Outdoor 19% 20% 18% 20% 18%

Employee Hall 270 317 197 247 274 320 408 427 71 159

% of Outdoor 32% 32% 27% 27% 25%

Judges Chamber 138 193 98 173 140 195 229 278 43 118

% of Outdoor 16% 16% 14% 15% 15%

Notes: 1. AQI for PM2.5 data that was collected following implementation of air filtering devices (8/24/21-9/3/21) was calculated using the average PM2.5 concentration measured during 7am-6pm on the day of monitoring. AQI for PM2.5 data that was collected prior to implementation of air filtering devices (8/23-8/24) included all measurement data including data outside of 7am-6pm. 2. “>500” indicates that values are above an AQI of 500, which is considered beyond the AQI. 3. “NA” indicates no measurement taken.

Table 3: El Dorado SLT - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) –8/29/21 to 9/3/21 (With Air Filtering Devices)

Location With Air Filtering Devices (AFDs)

8/29/2021 8/30/2021 8/31/2021 9/1/2021 9/2/2021 9/3/2021

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

PM2.5 AQI

(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) Exterior

Exterior - Balcony 375 400 1125 >500 901 >500 907 >500 1598 >500 3409 >500

Interior Adjacent

Front Security

65 156 184 234 153 204 159 210 319 355 655 >500

% of Outdoor 17% 16% 17% 18% 20% 19%

Employee Hall 99 173 249 299 161 211 160 211 287 330 521 >500

% of Outdoor 26% 22% 18% 18% 18% 15%

Judges Chamber 50 137 141 195 122 185 129 189 227 276 431 444

% of Outdoor 13% 13% 14% 14% 14% 13%

Notes: 1. AQI for PM2.5 data that was collected following implementation of air filtering devices (8/24/21-9/3/21) was calculated using the average PM2.5 concentration measured during 7am-6pm on the day of monitoring. AQI for PM2.5 data that was collected prior to implementation of air filtering devices (8/23-8/24) included all measurement data including data outside of 7am-6pm. 2. “>500” indicates that values are above an AQI of 500, which is considered beyond the AQI. 3. “NA” indicates no measurement taken.


Appendix B

Appendix B

PM2.5 Data Figures

Figure 1: El Dorado SLT - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/23/21 to 8/24/21 (Without Air Filtering Devices)


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

19:1

519

:35

19:5

520

:15

20:3

520

:55

21:1

521

:35

21:5

522

:15

22:3

522

:55

23:1

523

:35

23:5

50:

150:

350:

551:

151:

351:

552:

152:

352:

553:

153:

353:

554:

154:

354:

555:

155:

355:

556:

156:

356:

557:

157:

357:

558:

158:

358:

55

PM2.

5 AQ

IPM2.5 AQI 8/23/21 - 8/24/21 (Baseline Data; w/o AFDs)

Exterior Monitor #1 (Front Security) Monitor #2 (Court Room)

Monitor #3 (Employee Hallway) Monitor #4 (Judges Chamber)

Figure 2: El Dorado SLT - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/24/21 to 9/3/21 (With Air Filtering Devices)


Figure 3: El Dorado SLT - PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) – 8/24/21 7am-6pm (With Air Filtering Devices)


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Time 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00

8/24/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/24/21 (w AFDs)

Monitor 1 - Adj Front Security - AQI Monitor 3 - Employee Hall - AQI

Monitor 4 - Judges Chamber - AQI Monitor 5 - Exterior Balcony - AQI



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Time 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/26/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/26/21 (w/ AFDs)





0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Time 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/27/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/27/21 (w/ AFDs)





0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Time 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/28/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/28/21 (w/ AFDs)





0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/29/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/29/21 (w/ AFDs)





0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Time 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/30/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/30/21 (w/ AFDs)





0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Time 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

8/31/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 8/31/21 (w/ AFDs)





0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Time 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

9/1/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 9/1/21 (w/ AFDs)





0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Time 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

9/2/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 9/2/21 (w/ AFDs)





0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Time 7:00 8:00

9/3/2021

PM2.

5 AQ

I

PM2.5 AQI 9/3/21 (w/ AFDs)




Appendix C

Appendix C

Site Diagrams


DATE: 08/23/2021- 09/03/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66225

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik



LOCATION: El Dorado County Superior Court (09-E1)1354 Johnson Blvd, #2, South Lake Tahoe, CA

SHEETNUMBER:

S(1-1)

Lower level entry at Security

Lower level Employee Hall

Lower level Court Room (removed)

LEGEND


: Sampling locationsxxxxx


DATE: 08/23/2021- 09/03/2021

JOB NUMBER:

PJ66225

DRAWN BY:

Diana Lutsik



LOCATION: El Dorado County Superior Court (09-E1)1354 Johnson Blvd, #2, South Lake Tahoe, CA

SHEETNUMBER:

S(1-1)

Exterior Balcony

Upper Level Judges Chamber

LEGEND


: Sampling locationsxxxxx

Right People

Right Perspective

Right Now
